Legal Opinion
State Bd. Milk Control v. Richman, C., Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided December 14, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Complainant seeks to enjoin the defendant from alleged violations of the so-called Milk Control act, chapter 169 (P.L.1933 p. 353), and, at the final hearing, it was conceded that the defendant had not complied therewith in so far as such milk as is used in the manufacture of ice cream was concerned, but that it had attempted to comply in so far as milk being used by it for other purposes went.
There appear to have been some minor violations with respect to the milk other than that used in manufacture, but these matters have been adjusted and do not require injunctive relief.
Defendant attacks…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- People v. NebbiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Hill v. HillNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Attorney-GeneralSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1889
- Maul v. Thayer-MartinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1934
3Cited by7 opinions
- Green v. Milk Control CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Miami Home Milk Producers Asso. v. Milk Control BoardSupreme Court of Florida · 1936
- Holcombe v. Georgia Milk Producers ConfederationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- MISSISSIPPI MILK COM'N v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1970
- Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Milk Control CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.